American Politics

[PedroMendez]

A short Afghanistan war was unavoidable after 9/11. A decade long cluster-feck.....well...that was not necessary at all and didnt achieve anything.
War is not an unavoidable state of foreign affairs and its not a byproduct of "human condition". Complete rubbish. China or other countries are not going to war all the time. Americans just got used to it. Militarism is part of their culture and identity.

 

[Raoul]

A short Afghanistan war was unavoidable after 9/11. A decade long cluster-feck.....well...that was not necessary at all and didnt achieve anything.
War is not an unavoidable state of foreign affairs and its not a byproduct of "human condition". Complete rubbish. China or other countries are not going to war all the time. Americans just got used to it. Militarism is part of their culture and identity.

As I said above, the Afghanistan war would've been over much earlier if Iraq never happened. Take it from me, I just spent 6 out of the past 10 years in both places. The US wasn't able to do both well, so Iraq became the immediate priority at the expense of Afghanistan, which was unnecessarily prolonged from a 4-5 year conflict to 13 years.

If you look back at human history, it doesn't take someone of your obvious intellect to recognize that our species have been fighting since the dawn of time.

 

[Essaux]

your government is pretty fecked up.

Bingo!

Afghanistan was completely necessary.

Hahahah! It was completely unnecessary.

Just because ONE guy decides to commit a terror attack against the United States doesn't mean you get carte blanche to invade, destroy and ruin an autonomous country. Bypassing international treaties and laws and going gung-ho into a war that was uncalled for is not the right thing to do nor completely necessary.

Nobody in Afghanistan asked for Saudi born BIN LADEN to move to and live in Afghanistan and certainly nobody invited you guys over to bomb, destabilise and ruin their country. And if you think that what you guys did in Afghanistan is remotely right, then that tells a lot about you. Because it wasn't right and it should never have happened.

As Pedro mentioned. It was a complete cluster feck of feck ups and nothing has been achieved.
The Taliban is still there. Same shit is still there.
And in the process the USA have alienated even more people and have created even more people averse to the Unites States.

My previous point of my previous post was that The United States have no authority, no morality, to tell others how to live their lives. No one asked for the US to come into Vietnam, no one asked for the US to come into Afghanistan (and - respectively - no communism and Bin Laden are not excuses to do so).

 

[Essaux]

As I said above, the Afghanistan war would've been over much earlier if Iraq never happened. Take it from me, I just spent 6 out of the past 10 years in both places. The US wasn't able to do both well, so Iraq became the immediate priority at the expense of Afghanistan, which was unnecessarily prolonged from a 4-5 year conflict to 13 years.

If you look back at human history, it doesn't take someone of your obvious intellect to recognize that our species have been fighting since the dawn of time.

If Afghanistan was necessary, then why not go after Pakistan with a full blown mission. That was where you guys eventually found Bin Laden. Pakistan is as infested with Taliban as Afghanistan.

I tell you why you didn't go in there. Pakistan actually got numbers (population) and nukes. Afghanistan was thought to be an easy one, even that didn't work out.

 

[Raoul]

If Afghanistan was necessary, then why not go after Pakistan with a full blown mission. That was where you guys eventually found Bin Laden. Pakistan is as infested with Taliban as Afghanistan.

I tell you why you didn't go in there. Pakistan actually got numbers (population) and nukes. Afghanistan was thought to be an easy one, even that didn't work out.

Are you familiar with the situation in Afghanistan ? Prior to 9/11, it was being used as a training ground for Al-Qaeda. Pakistan, at least had and has a functioning government that is able to deal with its problem. Afghanistan had the Taliban who invited Bin LAdin and Al-Qaeda in to prepare attacks against the west.

 

[Raoul]

Bingo!


Hahahah! It was completely unnecessary.

Just because ONE guy decides to commit a terror attack against the United States doesn't mean you get carte blanche to invade, destroy and ruin an autonomous country. Bypassing international treaties and laws and going gung-ho into a war that was uncalled for is not the right thing to do nor completely necessary.

Nobody in Afghanistan asked for Saudi born BIN LADEN to move to and live in Afghanistan and certainly nobody invited you guys over to bomb, destabilise and ruin their country. And if you think that what you guys did in Afghanistan is remotely right, then that tells a lot about you. Because it wasn't right and it should never have happened.

As Pedro mentioned. It was a complete cluster feck of feck ups and nothing has been achieved.
The Taliban is still there. Same shit is still there.
And in the process the USA have alienated even more people and have created even more people averse to the Unites States.

My previous point of my previous post was that The United States have no authority, no morality, to tell others how to live their lives. No one asked for the US to come into Vietnam, no one asked for the US to come into Afghanistan (and - respectively - no communism and Bin Laden are not excuses to do so).

You obviously don't have a clue as to how the international system works. Let me help you out. Powerful states who hold a military, economic, and technological superiority get to set the agenda. There is currently no such thing as a world government, and until such time as there is, the international system will remain anarchic, and driven by those who hold the three features i just listed.

 

[Essaux]

Are you familiar with the situation in Afghanistan ? Prior to 9/11, it was being used as a training ground for Al-Qaeda. Pakistan, at least had and has a functioning government that is able to deal with its problem. Afghanistan had the Taliban who invited Bin LAdin and Al-Qaeda in to prepare attacks against the west.

You do know that you guys trained Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan to fight against the commies in the 80s?

Same way you guys have armed and trained "rebels" in Syria to fight against Assad. Majority of these trained and armed rebels are now part of Islamic State.

"Create a problem. Then fix the problem." = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ - MIC is loving it for sure.

 

[Essaux]

You obviously don't have a clue as to how the international system works. Let me help you out. Powerful states who hold a military, economic, and technological superiority get to set the agenda. There is currently no such thing as a world government, and until such time as there is, the international system will remain anarchic, and driven by those who hold the three features i just listed.

Alright then. Then I hope the West is not going to be hypocrites and whine when Russia invades Ukraine and do what they need to do in order to protect their security interests. It's basically the same thing the US does.

 

[Raoul]

You do know that you guys trained Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan to fight against the commies in the 80s?

Same way you guys have armed and trained "rebels" in Syria to fight against Assad. Majority of these trained and armed rebels are now part of Islamic State.

"Create a problem. Then fix the problem." = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ - MIC is loving it for sure.

Yes indeed, and that's perfectly fine as he wasn't leading an international terrorist organization at the time. The US was perfectly within its rights to train foreign fighters to fight the likes of Communism during that period, as it was perceived as an expansionist threat of the era. Nothing wrong with it at all, as no one could've predicted what would happend 15-20 years later.

 

[Raoul]

Alright then. Then I hope the West is not going to be hypocrites and whine when Russia invades Ukraine and do what they need to do in order to protect their security interests. It's basically the same thing the US does.

You're correct, although as I stated, the US and Europe will squeeze the life out of the Russian economy through sanctions if it decides to invade Ukraine. It will pay a price far worse than anything it would gain by invading Ukraine.

 

[Essaux]

You obviously don't have a clue as to how the international system works. Let me help you out. Powerful states who hold a military, economic, and technological superiority get to set the agenda. There is currently no such thing as a world government, and until such time as there is, the international system will remain anarchic, and driven by those who hold the three features i just listed.

They set the agenda. It doesn't mean it's the right agenda and I know for sure that there are many Americans who would agree with me.

As I said before American politics is a plutocracy. Democracy is a farce in your country, whoever you vote for is extensively towing the corporate line as lobbyists won't allow for them to change course which wouldn't be in the best interest of the US's strongest companies.

The only downfall for you guys is an internal collapse. Your politics is polarised as it has been never before. Immigration of muslims and many new converts to Islam are creating existential threats for the American way of life from within. And your foreign policy keeps on creating new foes and waste American lives for unnecessary wars.

You're correct, although as I stated, the US and Europe will squeeze the life out of the Russian economy through sanctions if it decides to invade Ukraine. It will pay a price far worse than anything it would gain by invading Ukraine.

Russia already banned import of food from Western countries and it is hurting the Western producers more than it is hurting them at the moment.

Russia turns off the gas to Western Europe and we will have to buy some more blankets to keep warm during winter this year.

Russia is also turning to more trade with China and typically other BRIC nations, which would easily compensate for lost trade with the West.

Also for all the technological superiority it is funny how the United States is relying on Russian Soyoez rockets to get their astronauts to the ISS. US at the moment cannot get manned spacecrafts into orbit.

I think it is a bit naive to think you can hurt Russia with economic sanctions. Russia is the largest country in the world with an incredible amount of resources within its borders. Russia will be just fine and I think that is annoying the West the most.

 

[Raoul]

They set the agenda. It doesn't mean it's the right agenda and I know for sure that there are many Americans who would agree with me.

As I said before American politics is a plutocracy. Democracy is a farce in your country, whoever you vote for is extensively towing the corporate line as lobbyists won't allow for them to change course which wouldn't be in the best interest of the US's strongest companies.

The only downfall for you guys is an internal collapse. Your politics is polarised as it has been never before. Immigration of muslims and many new converts to Islam are creating existential threats for the American way of life from within. And your foreign policy keeps on creating new foes and waste American lives for unnecessary wars.


Russia already banned import of food from Western countries and it is hurting the Western producers more than it is hurting them at the moment.

Russia turns off the gas to Western Europe and we will have to buy some more blankets to keep warm during winter this year.

Russia is also turning to more trade with China and typically other BRIC nations, which would easily compensate for lost trade with the West.

Also for all the technological superiority it is funny how the United States is relying on Russian Soyoez rockets to get their astronauts to the ISS.

I think it is a bit naive to think you can hurt Russia with economic sanctions. Russia is the largest country in the world with an incredible amount of resources within its borders. Russia will be just fine and I think that is annoying the West the most.

Its completely irrelevant whether you or i, or other Americans agree or disagree. This is the way the system works at this point in history. States with power get to set the agenda, not just at the state level (like the USA), but also through the security council.

Russia in this case, doesn't hold the power - the US and Europe do and since Russia's budget comes from at least 50% energy exports, they have to continue selling it. Their deal with China is not going to kick in for many years (2018 at the earliest) as the pipeline infrastructure hasn't even been built yet. They are extremely vulnerable and are already feeling the effects of sanctions.

 

[JustAFan]

Stopping in here because reading about the shithole that is American Politics is still better than watching United play at the moment.

 

[PedroMendez]

Russian import bans primarily hurt their own population. These sanction will cost germany some growth; the rest of the major western nations are almost unaffected, while russia already starts to suffer from it. Because of the strong state interference, the Russian economy is not competitive at all. They dont have the technology or know-how to compete with western industry/services and they also cant compete with price of production in many low-wage countries. They are also missing the funds for proper investment and since the crises started there is almost no foreign investment from western countries.
They sell energy/natural resources but thats about it. Thats just not enough to reach any proper economic level.

Else there is not much to say. Nobody is debating that the USA is setting the international agenda. Of course they do. Strong nations always did. The question is if their agenda/strategy is reasonable. Instead of killing people oversea and fulling fanaticism all over the world, they could squander their money on blow and hoes. Win-win.

 

[JustAFan]

A short Afghanistan war was unavoidable after 9/11. A decade long cluster-feck.....well...that was not necessary at all and didnt achieve anything.
War is not an unavoidable state of foreign affairs and its not a byproduct of "human condition". Complete rubbish. China or other countries are not going to war all the time. Americans just got used to it. Militarism is part of their culture and identity.

A quick check of world history even the history prior to the US even being a nation shows that there has seldom if ever been a time when wars were not happening someplace around the globe. So yes it can be said that wars are very much part of the human condition.

 

[PedroMendez]

its non argument and meaningless. There are plenty examples where war didnt happen, so I could equally say that "peace is very much part of the human condition". Your statement explains absolutely nothing. Its a phrase used to excuse stupidity, except that there might be conflicts between humans, that might or might not be solved violently.
In the 1980 the USA decided that the middle east is their vital interest zone where they have to be the hegemony power, because they needed secure access to oil (Carter doctrine). Since this point in history the USA shot/bombed/killed everyone in this region, who challenged their power. The problem is that this region is contested by other global and local powers, so the USA have to constantly use force to enforce their policy. The constant use of force brutalizes societies, so its more likely that future conflicts are also used with force. Its all fairly simple and has little to do with the complete rubbish talk about the human condition. Its way to unspecific/general statement, that leads to zero insights.

 

[JustAFan]

its non argument and meaningless. There are plenty examples where war didnt happen, so I could equally say that "peace is very much part of the human condition". Your statement explains absolutely nothing. Its a phrase used to excuse stupidity, except that there might be conflicts between humans, that might or might not be solved violently.
In the 1980 the USA decided that the middle east is their vital interest zone where they have to be the hegemony power, because they needed secure access to oil (Carter doctrine). Since this point in history the USA shot/bombed/killed everyone in this region, who challenged their power. The problem is that this region is contested by other global and local powers, so the USA have to constantly use force to enforce their policy. The constant use of force brutalizes societies, so its more likely that future conflicts are also used with force. Its all fairly simple and has little to do with the complete rubbish talk about the human condition. Its way to unspecific/general statement, that leads to zero insights.

Sounds a lot like world history to me, nothing new under the sun when it comes to how humans behave. We have been smashing each other around since the first tree or cave dwelling relative of our picked up a rock and smashed his neighbor on the head with it to have better access to the local watering hole.

No sign of it ending anytime soon.

 

[JustAFan]

Alright then. Then I hope the West is not going to be hypocrites and whine when Russia invades Ukraine and do what they need to do in order to protect their security interests. It's basically the same thing the US does.

Will you be as anti-Russian when they invade the Ukraine and as vocal here as being against them? Just curious.

 

[The Mitcher]

Yes indeed, and that's perfectly fine as he wasn't leading an international terrorist organization at the time. The US was perfectly within its rights to train foreign fighters to fight the likes of Communism during that period, as it was perceived as an expansionist threat of the era. Nothing wrong with it at all, as no one could've predicted what would happend 15-20 years later.

Was it well in its rights to use the CIA to destabilise countries like Chile and El Salvador because of communism? Communism was sometimes the only way that the people usually wanted to kick out the usually American companies that owned vast amounts of land and resources in their countries or their pro American dictators/corrupt governments. Besides, Chile was socialist and wanted to command its own destiny, instead Allende is assassinated and Pinochet put in, who is by coincidence pro American.

 

[Raoul]

Was it well in its rights to use the CIA to destabilise countries like Chile and El Salvador because of communism? Communism was sometimes the only way that the people usually wanted to kick out the usually American companies that owned vast amounts of land and resources in their countries or their pro American dictators/corrupt governments. Besides, Chile was socialist and wanted to command its own destiny, instead Allende is assassinated and Pinochet put in, who is by coincidence pro American.

Definitely not. There was a lot of pointless interventionism going on from the 50s to the 80s that was more destabilizing than helpful.

 

[The Mitcher]

Definitely not. There was a lot of pointless interventionism going on from the 50s to the 80s that was more destabilizing than helpful.

Which is exactly what happened in Afghanistan.

 

[Raoul]

Which is exactly what happened in Afghanistan.

It did, but i think it's unrealistic to not expect any proxy wars between the world's two superpowers. The period between the late 40s and mid 80s was one massive chess game between the US and Soviets, which was a natural by byproduct of the self-organization of the international system.

 

[The Mitcher]

It did, but i think it's unrealistic to not expect any proxy wars between the world's two superpowers. The period between the late 40s and mid 80s was one massive chess game between the US and Soviets, which was a natural by byproduct of the self-organization of the international system.

It wasn't a proxy war, the Soviets were fighting.

 

[Raoul]

It wasn't a proxy war, the Soviets were fighting.

Sorry wrong term. I'm talking about the general need for both nations to fight one another through third party countries in order to thwart the other's sphere of influence. In Afghanistan, the US were clearly interested supporting anti-Soviet fighters to stop the spread of communism.

 

[The Mitcher]

Sorry wrong term. I'm talking about the general need for both nations to fight one another through third party countries in order to thwart the other's sphere of influence. In Afghanistan, the US were clearly interested supporting anti-Soviet fighters to stop the spread of communism.

It wasn't spreading by the late 70s, the rot had set in. They were simply propping up a regime.

 

[senorgregster]

The irony of all of this is that America has invaded 50 countries since World War II. Yet, the US themselves have been invaded 0 times.

Did the US need to invade Vietnam? No.
Did the US need to invade Cuba? No.
Did the US need to invade Afghanistan? No.
etc.

The USA has an extensive history of destabilising governments across the World. Create a problem, and then come in and fix the problem.

Curious. You stop at WWII. Should the US have got involved there in your opinion? Any other places they should have got involved?

 

[Loublaze]

your government is pretty fecked up. I guess thats his point. Eventually not even more than others; sadly you guys have the bazooka, while others just throw rocks. People could also realize that 90% of all wars dont solve any problems and are a waste of money. That astonishes me the most. The CBO estimated that the Iraq war will cost every American about 6300$ till the year 2017. Most independent sources talk about much more. So you end up somewhere between 10.000$-25.000$ for each citizen. bloody hell. Why the feck would any reasonable person support something which is so bad for themselves.The USA became a militaristic society. Nobody is able to question this madness anymore. Add afghanistan and all the other wars and the waste on military equipment and you get an even higher number. I´d be so mad if I´d be an American tax payer.




I didnt know that the USA is at war with at least 8 countries at the moment. Maybe your government should communicate that? Send them a memo or an email:
Do you want to have war with me?
( ) Yes
( ) No
( ) Maybe
( ) xoxoxoxoxoxo

You're correct. Im American and im fvcking sick of it.

 

[Raoul]

It wasn't spreading by the late 70s, the rot had set in. They were simply propping up a regime.

My broader point is that the so called propping up of regimes at the time was in many countries a legitimate device to gain influence in order to thwart the spread of communism. Nobody cared about Islamic extremism in those days, the entire Universe was centered on the bipolar world of the West vs the Iron Curtain, and policy choices were framed within the context of gaining advantage over the other side.

 

[africanspur]

Senorgregster. Surely you're not comparing WW2, in which the US was dragged in, reluctantly or not, by a direct strike on American soil....to Vietnam, Iraq, Laos etc etc?

I don't agree that the US had to invade Afghanistan at all.

I don't know if you can call him a terrorist at the time, we could have a whole thread dedicated to what the incredibly politicised term of 'Terrorism' actually means but he was certainly already International at the time, a Saudi leading a band of mostly Arabs fighting in Afghanistan.

Essaux, is there any conversation in which you do not consider Muslims a major threat? the American Muslim population, making up 0.8% of the population and perhaps the most heterogenous Muslim population in the world...is an existential threat to the American way of life? In what way? I'm sure the black flag over the White House is imminent right?

And as I've said before, I've never understood the mentality of people who dislike American/ Western Foreign policy and therefore see every single International conflict in the prism of that, seeing the West as always wrong. I'm absolutely no fan of American foreign policy but that does not mean that every position they take is wrong. I'm not sure why you keep on mentioning democracies when Russia is no democracy at all. I'm also interested as to why you are not more outraged at the more religious path Russia and Putin are taking (including policies that actively harm people) and the invoking of religion by Ukrainian rebel leaders. A threat to our way of life surely?

Do you think the reason the US uses Russian rockets for the ISS is because they don't have the technology to do it?

Actually, I'm not sure Russia will be that fine, especially if the West really decides to hurt it with full sanctions. For all of Putin's posturing and disparaging remarks about certain countries within the Western sphere, its only the 8th largest economy in the world....behind the US, the UK, France and Germany. Their economy is mostly natural resources.

 

[Essaux]

Senorgregster. Surely you're not comparing WW2, in which the US was dragged in, reluctantly or not, by a direct strike on American soil....to Vietnam, Iraq, Laos etc etc?

I don't agree that the US had to invade Afghanistan at all.

I don't know if you can call him a terrorist at the time, we could have a whole thread dedicated to what the incredibly politicised term of 'Terrorism' actually means but he was certainly already International at the time, a Saudi leading a band of mostly Arabs fighting in Afghanistan.

Essaux, is there any conversation in which you do not consider Muslims a major threat? the American Muslim population, making up 0.8% of the population and perhaps the most heterogenous Muslim population in the world...is an existential threat to the American way of life? In what way? I'm sure the black flag over the White House is imminent right?

And as I've said before, I've never understood the mentality of people who dislike American/ Western Foreign policy and therefore see every single International conflict in the prism of that, seeing the West as always wrong. I'm absolutely no fan of American foreign policy but that does not mean that every position they take is wrong. I'm not sure why you keep on mentioning democracies when Russia is no democracy at all. I'm also interested as to why you are not more outraged at the more religious path Russia and Putin are taking (including policies that actively harm people) and the invoking of religion by Ukrainian rebel leaders. A threat to our way of life surely?

Do you think the reason the US uses Russian rockets for the ISS is because they don't have the technology to do it?

Actually, I'm not sure Russia will be that fine, especially if the West really decides to hurt it with full sanctions. For all of Putin's posturing and disparaging remarks about certain countries within the Western sphere, its only the 8th largest economy in the world....behind the US, the UK, France and Germany. Their economy is mostly natural resources.

Thanks, you answered for me to Senorgregster.

As for Muslims and major threat. I firmly believe in egalitarianism and humanism - and any religion, Islam in particular, is opposed to that. Whatever other religions might have done in the past, the fact is that Islam is the most expansionist, aggressive religion of our current times. Western European nations with a substantial amount of Muslims all experience the same problems. Severe lack of integration, disrespect of their host's native values and ethics, radicalisation and so forth. They only comprise 5% - 15% of these nation's population yet cause so much trouble. Now with IS and the amount of fighters from Western nations going there is just another confirmation of the threat that Islam poses upon any secular nation.

I don't think the black flag will ever fly over the White House. If anything, Americans will be tougher to lull into sleep than their Western European colleagues. But action is required. Reformation of Islam would be welcome, but it would essentially mean it wouldn't be true Islam anymore. Ask any influential imam.

-
The fact that they had to discontinue the space shuttle and are now reliant on soyoez to get their astronauts into space is exactly that. Of course, they will have a replacement shuttle at one stage, but they are in the process of developing it and until then Soyoez / Russian space technology for carrying humans into orbit is better than US's.

Space X's recent rocket launch exploded, so the privatisation of manned space flight is also still far off.
-
Russia will be fine, they will suffer, but they will be fine. They can go through huge sacrifice if necessary as World War 2 has shown and the battle of Stalingrad was the turning point of the war.

 

[senorgregster]

I didn't compare anything. It was just a question. Also there were two major fronts/enemies in WWII. Germany and Japan. Was killing off Germany necessary for US secuirty? The reason I ask is I wonder when it is OK for the US (or another country) to get involved in a war that is not really theirs. I really struggle with it.

 

[Red Dreams]

I didn't compare anything. It was just a question. Also there were two major fronts/enemies in WWII. Germany and Japan. Was killing off Germany necessary for US secuirty? The reason I ask is I wonder when it is OK for the US (or another country) to get involved in a war that is not really theirs. I really struggle with it.

killing off Germany?

what are you on about?

 

[Eboue]

I didn't compare anything. It was just a question. Also there were two major fronts/enemies in WWII. Germany and Japan. Was killing off Germany necessary for US secuirty? The reason I ask is I wonder when it is OK for the US (or another country) to get involved in a war that is not really theirs. I really struggle with it.

Germany declared war on the United States. You really ought to know what you are talking about before you spout off.

 

[senorgregster]

killing off Germany?

what are you on about?

Errrr ww2?

 

[Red Dreams]

Errrr ww2?

Eboue replied.

but even so...was Nazi Germany alright by you then?

 

[Raoul]

I didn't compare anything. It was just a question. Also there were two major fronts/enemies in WWII. Germany and Japan. Was killing off Germany necessary for US secuirty? The reason I ask is I wonder when it is OK for the US (or another country) to get involved in a war that is not really theirs. I really struggle with it.

Unfortunately, a war that threatens a regional or world order is impossible to ignore because of the spill over effects. If you frame it as such, the US was completely justified to enter a majority of its conflicts from WW2, to the cold war, to the war on terror.

 

[Pimpmofo]

Japan attacked the US so the US responded. Germany, Japan, and Italy were allies so Germany and Italy declared war on the US.

 

[senorgregster]

Germany declared war on the United States. You really ought to know what you are talking about before you spout off.

LOL I'm not spouting off. I actually think the US should have been involved

Eboue replied.

but even so...was Nazi Germany alright by you then?

Absolutely not! I think the US should have been involved and I've made a point of thanking US vets whenever a chance presents itself. My view (seems quite unpopular in my age group) is the US saved Europe's ass. My question is where to draw the line? Is Sadam killing off hundreds of thousands of his own population a good enough reason to get involved for instance? The reasons are never simple.

 

[berbatrick]

LOL I'm not spouting off. I actually think the US should have been involved

Absolutely not! I think the US should have been involved and I've made a point of thanking US vets whenever a chance presents itself. My view (seems quite unpopular in my age group) is the US saved Europe's ass. My question is where to draw the line? Is Sadam killing off hundreds of thousands of his own population a good enough reason to get involved for instance? The reasons are never simple.

The US did not get involved because of the evil of Nazi Germany- on fact they turned back many Jews fleeing persecution (as did Britain and USSR, of course, was originally a German ally).
They got involved after Japan bombed their navy at Pearl Harbour in 1941, 2 years after the start of the war in Europe (and 10 years after Japan invaded China). They declared war on Japan, then Germany and Italy declared war on the US, and thus the US was then fully involved in WW2. Till then they had only been sending equipment to Britain.



Again, the US did not invade Iraq because Saddam killed his people. If that was the criteria, they would have to invade half the governments of the world friendly to them. Indeed, Iraq was a friendly nation to the US when Saddam was gassing Kurds in 1988- the chemical weapons he used were supplied by Western powers for the Iran Iraq war. They turned hostile when he invaded Kuwait.

"In August 2013, Foreign Policy charged, based on recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials, that the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. Saddam's regime also received intelligence assistance from the CIA in 1987 prior to the Iraqis' early 1988 launch of sarin attacks to stop the potentially decisive Iranian offensive to capture the southern city of Basra, which, if successful, might have resulted in a collapse of Iraqi military and government"

A picture speaks a thousand words- in 1983:

That's Donald Rumsfeld.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/


About saving Europe's ass- I think it's true to an extent, but the Soviet sacrifice in WW2 far exceeds that of any other nation- 27 million Soviet citizens died out of a total Allied dead of 61 million (the US lost 400,000 soldiers)
80% of German deaths were on the Eastern front...
The Allies couldn't have sped from Normandy to Berlin without the utter drain on German resources that the Soviets caused.

 

[senorgregster]

Thanks for the details on that. I actually knew them (the Rummy photo always makes me angry) but I think it helps the discussion. The Russian losses are often overlooked. I've always wondered if the Russian troops were terribly wasted and what would have happened if they were utilized better. Seems so many were just sacrificed. The extra fronts in Europe were clearly a game changer albeit if "only" 400000 were lost. And we must not overlook all the allies landing on those beaches and fighting elsewhere.

The question that seems to have ruffled feathers (not my intention - apologies) wasn't why the US gets involved, it was when is it OK in people's view for the US to get involved. I get the sense that since WW2 most people would say never?